If you were a rich man... What would you do?
If you were a rich man... What would you do?
Obviously this is for both, men and women, you know, the song "if I was a rich man" and i saw the meme with...
sigh just answer the question
You're viewing a single thread.
I would buy up as many apartments as possible and lower the rent below market value, this driving other landlords to compete. Since they could not maintain a "sustainable" business model with their profit driven mindset, they would sell and I would buy. I would still seek a modest profit, which would be rolled into further acquisitions to further infect the market with sanity. It would be a McDonald's or Walmart approach to housing, positive effect by volume and low margins, but actually provide an undeniably good product.
I would also work with local businesses to offer discounts to residents of the apartments and employees of other businesses that also wish to partner, with the end goal of creating incentive to shop local and increase foot traffic, and therefore profits for those small businesses.
I would find residents who would be interested in starting a business, startup costs covered by my organization, and outcompetes with businesses who do not wish to be our partner. I would endeavor to provide free childcare and animal daycare/boarding. Ideally a pseudo private and free school system could be established to further promote the ideals of the community. Ideally provide free therapy. Ideally offer scholarships to traditional higher education or trade schools. Ideally create a system to help homeless people get back on their feet.
Overall the end goal would be to keep as much money within the local economy and maintain businesses that embody the values which create a healthy local economy, lower the costs of living, and restore the community to a healthy social state.
Or maybe I'll just start a sex cult in the woods.
I think the housing market plan doesn't seem likely to work. The real issue is not that current landlords are exceptionally greedy (the rules of capitalism assume and encourage everyone to be as greedy as possible), it's that there isn't enough housing stock to give everyone who wants one a unit. In economics, housing is more or less a commodity like everything else and thus follows the usual rule of supply and demand, i.e. insufficient supply drives up price until demand tapers down to meet it. If you buy up the city's housing supply and then price them below the equilibrium price, the result will just be that far more people want a place than you will ever have supply for, since you are not actually creating any new housing supply, just buying existing supply from other people.
I would think you'd have more success getting into the property development and construction business, buying up vacant or derelict lots in the city, building them into blocks of flats, and then letting them out on the cheap. You'd also have to hire lobbyists to prod the council to change zoning laws to allow for this development and obtain planning permission. It takes a lot of political maneuvering to make a housing project successful, not only because of legal restrictions, but also because you'll need amenities for your new development. Parking is a big one in the US unless you build a dense mixed-use development which is bureaucratically difficult to get planning permission for, but there's also considerations like whether the nearby bus line can handle the influx of passengers, whether the neighbourhood school can handle a hundred more pupils, whether there's a grocery store nearby, whether the area "feels safe", and so on.
Kind of the reason why State-run public housing schemes are so successful is because they are a government agency that has the power to brute-force the solutions to these problems. Zoning codes? Overruled. Public transit? Ordered. Schools? Built. Private developers don't have the power to do these things and have to beg the council for them instead.
it’s that there isn’t enough housing stock to give everyone who wants one a unit
There are >27 empty homes in the US for every homeless person.
It's not just the homeless in need of homes. You also have the ⅓ of people aged 18 to 34 still living with their parents, and the people who have to crowd into a 4-bedroom flat with five other people. Granted, this also includes people in school or those who just like living with their parents despite being able to afford their own place, but it still represents tens of millions of Americans.
Trust me, almost nobody purposefully keeps a house empty that they'd be able to let out. If a house is vacant, it's probably because it's subject to a legal dispute, derelict and uninhabitable, slated for demolition, for sale, or being used for short-term rentals (which should also be banned but that's only tangentially related).
but it still represents tens of millions of Americans.
From the linked article:
According to the U.S. Census, there are approximately 17 million vacant houses across the nation.
If a house is vacant, it’s probably because it’s subject to a legal dispute, derelict and uninhabitable, slated for demolition, for sale, or being used for short-term rentals (which should also be banned but that’s only tangentially related).
What're you basing that on? Because the US census bureau disagrees:
But the largest category of vacant housing in the United States is classified as “seasonal, recreational or occasional use,” commonly referred to as seasonal units. These vacant structures cover a wide range of housing units, from part-time residences and hunting cabins to beach houses and timeshares.
Point is, there's plenty of housing, but greed - either people who own multiple houses and do not rent them out, or people who have them up for rent or sale but have priced out a large part of the nation, is creating an artificial scarcity.
I'm talking about vacant homes in the city. Where the housing supply is most desperately needed. There are no such things as habitable off-market ready-to-move-in vacant homes in the city.
Holiday homes at the beach or hunting cabins in the woods aren't useful to consider and the way your article presents it as a solution to homelessness is irresponsible clickbait. All of the jobs and economic opportunity is in the city. A house in the forest or in a beach side community of 5,000 people does nothing to alleviate the housing crisis. You would do better requisitioning hotel rooms than trying to use these buildings for housing.
There are no such things as habitable off-market ready-to-move-in vacant homes in the city.
Just look at the link, man. Everything under 'Seasonal' is habitable and off-market.
Just looking at the numbers for Los Angeles, at the top of my list, shows that I'm substantially right.
16,889 units out of a total housing stock of 3,591,981 units amounts to less than half of one per cent. That's quite literally a rounding error. That number also utterly decimated by the homeless population in Los Angeles County, which is 75,518.
You are moving the goalposts every time you post. First there's not enough housing to give everyone a unit. Provided a link that counters that claim. Then the vacant housing is derelict / decrepit. Provided link that counters that claim. Then the housing isn't in the city. Provided link that counters that claim. Then there's not enough housing in LA specifically to cover the homeless population (which I will note includes a lot of folks who were sent to LA from elsewhere in the country after becoming homeless).
You can keep making excuses and changing your argument all you want, but the fact of the matter is, there's a lot of housing that isn't being used, or that's being priced too high to accommodate the people who need it. In fact, if you include that latter statistic, there's plenty of vacant housing in LA, even - 171,353 homes vs. your stated 75,518 homeless. You're going to an awful lot of trouble to attempt to find an argument supporting your view, and you haven't linked a single source for any of it.
Maybe consider that perfect doesn't need to be the enemy of good?
The goalpost remains where it was at the beginning of this conversation. I claimed, and maintain, that requisitioning vacant housing units is not a good solution to the housing shortage.
What you're describing is not the goalposts moving; it's that you are attacking very specific peripheral claims without realising that if any of them are true then the overall conclusion is true. So when you attack one and I point out that another exists, you accuse me of moving the goalpost.
In order to be useful towards alleviating a housing shortage, housing units must be habitable, located where housing is needed, legally available, and in significant quantity, among other things that I can't think of immediately. If any one of these is false, the solution doesn't work. it is absolutely not useful in the slightest to suggest that pointing out holes in a solution one at a time is "moving the goalposts" and use that as a pretext to dismiss criticism of that solution.
It should not require explanation that for a chain of reasoning to be sound, you do not need to link to someone else saying it. I can adequately use your own sources to attack your conclusion.
Vacant housing that is for let or for sale is already on the market and will eventually be let or sold. Nobody wants to have an empty house earning no money but still have to pay tax and utility bills for it. If it really is priced too high, then nobody will rent or buy it and they will decrease the price until someone does. If you want units to become cheaper, you can't do it by mandate with rent control ordinances or by requisition (at least not the US without paying compensation out the ass). This would be like trying to swim upstream. The only viable solution to bring down the price in this market is to create more supply (by building more units) or to depress demand (by driving people out of the city).
it’s that you are attacking very specific peripheral claims
I'm countering the claims you're making. I'm not going to intuit your arguments. If you want to clearly state your argument in its totality, I'll address it in its totality.
Your original claim was:
The real issue is not that current landlords are exceptionally greedy (the rules of capitalism assume and encourage everyone to be as greedy as possible), it’s that there isn’t enough housing stock to give everyone who wants one a unit.
The article you linked above did not support this argument, as it said the majority of people in that age range living with their parents are doing so because they don't make enough money or don't want to give money to a landlord, not that there isn't housing available to rent.
The fact that you're trying to exclude houses that are available for rent (presumably for prices that people can't afford) from the above stated numbers is yet another example of moving the goalposts because, based on your original stated argument, those should be included in the discussion.
If you narrow your argument enough times, you'll find something that's not easily countered - obviously. "There's 20 million people who want to live in Manhattan, but there's not enough units for them!" would technically be correct, but it's a worthless argument to make. Yes, some people will end up living outside of their ideal best case scenario, but you know what? I think getting everyone into houses is the first step, and we can work on improving the location of those houses second. Someone who's unemployed and unhoused in LA could be unemployed and housed in San Diego and their situation would be immensely improved.
So a commune?
I've been thinking if I could ever afford it, maybe work with section 8 to actually buy the property for the "renter". Sort of a lease to own, except section 8 pays. Once I've gotten my money back plus a small profit the home belongs to the tenant, and I build more housing, rinse and repeat. Would probably need to hire someone to help people manage that though. Some people don't know how to maintain a home because they've always rented or because mental illness or whatever.
That was worth reading to the end.
Well played friend. Well played.
Uber Landlord